Slashdot Mirror
Comparisons of Non-Linear Video Editing Packages?
kickabear asks: "I'm working on an independent (that means I'm poor) film. I'm looking for a site (or a book, I'm not picky) which reviews various non-linear video editing packages. I've found a few sites but I can't really find anything that does a side-by-side comparison of the features and capabilities of products such as Premiere Pro or Avid Xpress Pro or the 20 projects listed on Sourceforge. The project will be filmed using a brand new Sony HVRZ1U HDV camera, so if any comparison sites lean toward HDV/HDTV, that would be favorable. Any information, war stories, or advice would be appreciated."
If you're on a budget, I would think a $499 package would be better than Premiere's $699 package, right?
iMovie is only $499 bundled with a Mac mini. There's a lot of reviews for iMovie sans HD, and I'm sure a few with; iMovie is pretty solid for basic NLE (I've used it for weddings, presentations, and DVD quality releases), but most of the 'magic' comes from the camera, cameraman, director, and source material. The NLE can't do anything with crap.
GPL Deconstructed
I've also found that it's hard to find side by side comparisons. I've used just about every major NLE out there, and I've come to the conclusion that the reason behind you not being able to find comparisons is that they're all pretty much the same. Aside from a few UI nuances, they all work the same and do the same thing and have the same types of bugs and problems with hardware (as in capture devices). One of the easiest to work with (once you get used to it) is cinelerra. Don't count it out until you've tried it. I've never used it with HD, but it's supposed play nice.
If you are talking about a professional project (even on a low budget), there is not so much choice: it's either Avid or Final Cut Pro. I never heard of a film longer than a few minutes cut on anything else (not counting products which died long ago like Lightworks).
Avid has the advantage of better/easier integration with the other parts of post production like sound editing on Pro Tools, color correction on Symphony, etc. if you need these.
It's probabably your better bet for more demanding projects, and probably worth learning since it's the industry "standard". Another possible advantage is that it runs on both Mac and Windows.
Final Cut Pro tends to be easier to learn, and the editors I know tend to prefer it for small projects which don't need to be moved around to higher-end Avids for finishng, to Pro Tools, etc.
It only runs on Macs, but that also makes it potentially a lot cheaper, at least to start with: there is no dongle, and you can borrow a copy from someone else. Apple doesn't care so much: they have sold you a Mac anyway, and eventually you will pay for FCP too. Avid on the other hand relies on the software for it's revenue, so it is dongle-protected.
Whatever you get, if you buy rather than renting, you should realize that after a year you will probably have spent at least twice than what you planned, that there will always be stuff that you would need but cannot afford, and it has to pay for itself within 2 years, after which it's obsolete, you cannot rent it at any decent price, and you don't want to use it for yourself.
I don't mean it never makes sense buying. Sometimes it does. But I've also seen many cases where it didn't.
You say you want to use the Sony HVRZ1U. Looking at the specs, I
suggest it is a bad idea, particularly when you are considering post
production issues.
The HVRZ1U is 1080i only. Interlace scanning was a really cool hack
from the analogue age, but in the digital age it is a terrible hack.
You want progressive scanning. Particularly if you hope to release on
film, you want progressive scanning.
If you acquire your footage progressive you can later interlace it if
you have to, but if you acquire interlaced you can never get good
progressive footage out of it.
The big "1080" number might be attractive, but being interlaced it is
really more like 540. Look for a progressive scanned camera if you
possibly can. I think some progressive cameras run at slower frame
rates, but 25 frame per second camera works really well if you want to
go to 24fps film. Even if you go to video, you will get more of a
film look.
That is just for conventional editing that only consists of cuts. Do
anything slightly interesting (all that stuff that digital editing
makes so easy) and your post production software is going to go to
considerable effort to try to deinterlace. Make it easier, get better
results, don't use interlace in the first place.
Interlace: A once clever hack that should not be perpetuated!
-kb